Biography

Matthew Reed practices primarily in the area of product liability litigation, representing drug and medical device manufacturers in state and federal litigation across the country.  He also litigates complex business matters on behalf of clients in a variety of industries.  His recent efforts encompass a broad spectrum of motion and briefing practice, including post-trial and appellate work.

As the lead associate on the motion and briefing team for national coordinating counsel in multi-state medical products liability litigation, he has drafted successful motions for summary judgment, motions in limine, and trial briefs in state and federal courts around the nation.  He is familiar with state and federal complex litigation procedures, having contributed prevailing briefing in federal Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) proceedings, as well as oppositions to consolidation in the state court context.  He also has experience managing local counsel’s motion work and case handling.

Mr. Reed has extensive experience challenging and defending expert witnesses, having drafted and opposed numerous Daubert motions and motions to strike against a diverse range of medical and regulatory experts.  His motions have secured the exclusion or limitation of key opposing experts in vanguard federal court litigation.  He has also worked with co-defense counsel to coordinate nationwide Daubert strategy.

As the lead associate on post-appeal, state trial court briefing, Mr. Reed drafted a successful motion for contractual attorney fees in the amount of $1.5 million, despite an appellate decision affirming judgment against his client on all causes of action except the contract claim.  The success of the motion provided the client the right to recoup an additional $1.3 million in attorney fees already paid to the opposing party.  He also drafted motions to amend the judgment and for restitution, which the client leveraged for a favorable settlement of associated litigation.

Mr. Reed also has federal and state court appellate experience. He has drafted the respondent’s brief to the 9th Circuit in an appeal from a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of his client. He has also drafted the respondent’s brief and a motion to dismiss in an appeal from a state court trial verdict in favor of his client, a law firm.  The appellate court upheld the verdict in his client’s favor in its entirety, and the state supreme court denied petition for review.

Affiliations, Activities and Accomplishments

Mr. Reed routinely writes articles pertaining to product liability, with a particular emphasis on the various preemptive effects of federal regulation pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) thereto.  He is also a regular contributor to Sedgwick’s Appellate Strategist blog (www.appellatestrategist.com).

Presentations and Publications

• “FDA’s Medical Device ‘Enhancement’ Reporting Has Potential Product Liability Implications,” Sedgwick’s Medical Device Law Update (April 23, 2013).
• “Court Rejects Effort to ‘Preemption-Proof’ Medical Device Lawsuit,” Washington Legal Foundation Legal Opinion Letter, Vol. 22, No. 6 (April 19, 2013).
• “Stengel v. Medtronic: The 9th Circuit Switches Sides on Medical Device Preemption,” Westlaw Journal Medical Devices, Vol. 19, Issue 24, (Jan. 28, 2013), pp. 1-3; originally published by Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse Blog.
• “Squeezing Buckman Out of Pom Wonderful,” ABA Mass Torts Litigation Newsletter (Winter 2013, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 14-18).
• “What’s the Implication? Courts and the Scope of Implied Medical Device Preemption,” Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder, Vol. 27, No. 22 (November 16, 2012); reprinted in Westlaw Journal Medical Devices, Vol. 19, Issue 21, (December 3, 2012), pp. 11-13.
• “Rosa v. TASER Int’l, Inc.: Keeping Hindsight Bias Out of Failure-To-Warn Claims,” Sedgwick’s Medical Device Law Update (August 2012); reprinted in Chartis Insurance/AIG’s Legal Insights (Fall 2012).
• “Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc.: The Riegel/Buckman Gap Narrows in the Ninth Circuit,” Sedgwick’s Medical Device Law Update (May 2012).
• “Medical Device Patient Safety Act Proposes Two-Step Change to Oversight of Devices,” Sedgwick’s Medical Device Law Update (February 2012).
• “CPSC Vigorously Enforces Federal Product Defect Reporting Requirements,” Sedgwick’s Product Liability Advisory (September 2011).
• “Ninth Circuit Reiterates That Knowledge of Off-Label Use Doesn’t Equal Illegal Promotion of It,” Sedgwick’s Issue Tracker (March 2010).